G S Prashad vs Panchdeep Coop G H Society Ltd & Ors.

$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 13 March, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 17 March, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 15701/2023 & CM APPL. 62968/2023
G S PRASHAD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kunal Kalra and Mr. Ujjwal
Barnwal, Advs.
versus
PANCHDEEP COOP G H SOCIETY LTD & ORS......Respondents
Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Urvi Mohan & Mr. Sameer
Vashishtha, Advs. (M: 9873880830)
Ms Avni Singh Panel Counsel for
GNCTD with Mr. Harish , from office
of RCS.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
th
2. This is a petition challenging the impugned order dated 18 September,
2023 passed by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal (hereinafter “ DCT ”) by
which the appeal filed by the Appellant before the DCT has been dismissed
on the ground of being barred by limitation.
3. The brief background is that the Petitioner is a member of the Society
i.e., Panchdeep Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter
“ Soceity ”), and is in possession of Flat No. 98 therein. It is stated that the
Society had raised some dues against various members, including the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.03.2026
15:50:40
W.P.(C) 15701/2023 Page 1 of 7

Petitioner, in respect of loans obtained from Respondent No. 4 - Delhi Co-
operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. In this regard, the Society had
initiated arbitration proceedings under Section 61 of the Delhi Co-operative
Societies Act, 1972 and a Sole Arbitrator was appointed.
4. The proceeding sheets have been placed on record and the same are
extracted hereunder for ease of reference:
“1.04.2004
Summons are issued to all the parties concerned to
appear before the undersigned on 24.04.04 at 3
p.m. through registered post. The postal receipts
are placed on record.
24.04.04.
Present Sh. R.K. Mudgil, on behalf of the claimant.
None present on behalf of the defendant No.1 also
present Sh. Amit Sharma on behalf of the defendant
No. 2. In the interest of justice, fresh summons are
issued to defendant No.1 to appear before the
undersigned on 8.05.04 at 3 p.m.
On 26/04/04 Sh. G.P. Prasad appeared and
requested the date. The case as already adjourned
for 8.5.04 at 3 p.m., therefore the date is given to
the defendant is 8.5.04 at 3 p.m.
8.05.04.
Present Sh. R. K. Mudgil, Secretary of the claimant
society, also present Sh. G.S. Prasad the defendant.
The copy of the claim petition is given to the
defendant for his written reply. The case is
adjourned for 15.05.04 at 3 p.m.
15.5.04
Present Sh. R. K. Mudgil, the Secretary of the
society, also present Sh. G.S. Prasad, the defendant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.03.2026
15:50:40
W.P.(C) 15701/2023 Page 2 of 7

himself. The defendant filed written reply, the copy
of which is given to the claimant for its rejoinder
reply. The case is adjourned for 22.05.04 at 10:30
a.m.
22.05.04
Present Sh. G.S. Prasad the defendant himself.
None appeared on behalf of the claimant except
one representation placed on record. The case is
adjourned for 28.05.04 at 10 am.
“28.05.04.
Present Sh. Mudgil, the Society of the claimant society,
also present Sh. G.S. Prasad the Defendant himself. The
claimant submitted the rejoinder reply. Heard the
arguments of both the parties. The case is reserved for
orders.
3.06.2004
Award u/S 61
The award has been passed accordingly. One copy of
the award is placed on record. Each copy of the award
has been sent to all the parties concerned. The postal
receipts are placed on record.”
5. As can be seen from the above proceeding sheets, the Petitioner
regularly appeared before the Arbitrator and the written statement was also
th
filed by the Petitioner. This is recorded in the order dated 15 May, 2004.
nd
Thereafter, on 22 May, 2004, none appeared for the Society and
th
accordingly, the matter was then adjourned to 28 May, 2004. However, on
th
on 28 May, 2004, although it is recorded that the Petitioner and the secretary
of the Society were present and arguments were heard, the proceedings as
recorded have been severely disputed by the Petitioner.
6. The version of the Petitioner is that in fact the Society did not appear
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.03.2026
15:50:40
W.P.(C) 15701/2023 Page 3 of 7

on the said date. The Petitioner was also present till 11:00 a.m. and during the
said period the Petitioner was informed that the ld. Arbitrator would not be
conducting proceedings on the said date. Accordingly, it is submitted that no
arguments were heard on 28th May, 2004. However, the proceeding sheet
rd
recorded to the contrary and the award was allegedly passed on 3 June, 2004.
7. In support of the above submission, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has
drawn the attention of the Court to the proceeding sheets which have been
duly countersigned by the Petitioner on each date when he was present.
However, the signature of the Petitioner is conspicuously absent from the
proceedings as recorded on 28th May, 2004.
8. The Petitioner is further aggrieved by the fact that he had neither been
communicated about passing of the award dated 3rd June, 2004, nor had he
received a copy of the same. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the
Petitioner that, all along, the Petitioner had informed the ld. Arbitrator that
though he is owing a flat in the Society, he was actually residing in 40-B,
Single Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi -110015 or B-106, Double Storey,
Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110015 and correspondence was to be sent to this
address. Despite this being the position, the award is allegedly communicated
by UPC at the address of the Society i.e., 98 - Panchdeep Apartment,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018.
9. Thus, the case of the Petitioner is that the award was never received by
the Petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner wrote two letters to the ld. Arbitrator, one
rd th
on 3 June, 2004 and then on 12 October, 2004, however, no reply was
received.
10. As per the award dated 3rd June, 2004, the Arbitrator has directed
payment of a sum of Rs. 1,35,926/- along with interest in the following terms:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.03.2026
15:50:40
W.P.(C) 15701/2023 Page 4 of 7

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.03.2026
15:50:40
W.P.(C) 15701/2023 Page 5 of 7

11. This award was sought to be executed by the Society over several years
and it is the case of the Petitioner that he came to know of the award only on
th
19 January, 2015. He stated to have obtained a copy from the RCS office on
th
20 January, 2015 and then filed the appeal before the DCT.
12. In the DCT order, the delay of 11 years has been held against the
Petitioner and the appeal has been dismissed.
13. The Court has heard ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and the Society.
Clearly, the first and the foremost lapse appears to be that of the ld. Arbitrator
th
who appears to not have accurately recorded the proceedings on 28 May,
2004. It is the case of the Petitioner, that no submissions or arguments were
made on his behalf. Thus, the Award has been passed without hearing the
Petitioner. The Award was passed ex-parte . It was also clearly not
communicated to the Petitioner as the UPC receipt does not have the proper
address for service of the correspondence which was duly intimated by the
Petitioner to the Ld. Arbitrator.
rd
14. In any event on 3 June, 2004 a letter has been written by the Petitioner
th
to the Arbitrator and again on 12 October, 2004 another letter has been
written seeking information relating to the Arbitral proceedings. However, no
reply was received by the Petitioner. There is no proof placed on record by
the RCS as to the manner in which the award was communicated and the
original UPC receipt is not available in the RCS records as per Ms. Avni
Singh, ld. Counsel for the RCS.
15. On behalf of the Society, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, ld. Counsel submits that
the delay of 11 years in filing the appeal is too long. There is some justification
in this submission inasmuch as since the Petitioner knew of the arbitral
proceedings he had a duty to follow up and obtain the copy of the award which
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.03.2026
15:50:40
W.P.(C) 15701/2023 Page 6 of 7

he did not do. This lapse is on the part of the Petitioner.
16. Thus, in the overall facts and circumstances there have been lapses
from both sides as also by the Arbitrator. However, the Court is of the view
that the appeal of the Petitioner before the DCT ought to be permitted to be
heard on merits, especially because the Award is an ex-parte award, wherein
submissions were not heard by the Ld. Arbitrator. The above relief of the
appeal being restored for adjudication on merits is given on the condition that
a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be deposited by the Petitioner with the office of
th
the RCS by 20 March, 2026. The said deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be
without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioner.
17. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The appeal of the
Petitioner before the DCT is restored to its original position. The DCT shall
adjudicate the matter on merits after hearing both sides within a period of four
months from today.
nd
18. The parties shall appear before the DCT on 2 April, 2026.
19. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
MARCH 13, 2026
dj/msh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.03.2026
15:50:40
W.P.(C) 15701/2023 Page 7 of 7